Cold warriors keep control of Republican defence agenda

Few recent presidential contenders have challenged for the White House with less experience of defence and foreign affairs than George W Bush. But the son of an avowed "foreign policy president" has already surrounded himself with experienced counsellors from the Reagan and Bush Sr years who seem likely to guarantee a traditional Republican approach.

If Mr Bush becomes president his vice-president will be Dick Cheney, a former defence secretary. He would clearly like to make General Colin Powell his secretary of state.

The former White House Russia adviser Condoleezza Rice seems to be earmarked for the job of national security adviser. Such veterans as Bob Zoellick, Paul Wolfowitz and the "prince of darkness", Richard Perle, are all poised for a comeback

The Bush team is not united on every policy issue, but the Republicans are committed to a package which revives many of the preoccupations of the 1980s. These include increased military spending, expansion of the US weapons and missile programme, a more confront ational approach to China and Russia, and an unconstrained approach to free trade, though many policies from the Clinton years would remain unchanged too.

Mr Bush has tried to make the poor morale of the US armed forces into a campaign issue, and he is committed to spending an extra $1bn a year on military pay, as well as "refashioning our military" with new equipment and weapons.

Chief among these is the national missile defence system (NMD), which he wants to extend well beyond the limits currently under consideration by the Clinton administration.

The Texas governor has said he supports sea- and space-based expansion of the land-based anti-missile system, a scheme which echoes the 1980s star wars project and raises issues with ramifications far beyond US borders. In the worst case, his version of NMD could sour relations with Russia and China, encourage a nuclear missile race between India and Pakistan, and create fresh tension in Nato and other US alliances.

Like Mr Clinton eight years ago, Mr Bush would become a president committed to stopping "endless deployments" of US forces in international crisis zones. "The deployment of our troops creates discontent among our soldiers," he said recently. "We can't be all things to all people."

Neither Mr Bush nor Mr Gore is an isolationist, but Mr Bush in particular intends to ration the extent to which the US becomes directly involved in peacekeeping measures around the world. He is on record as saying that there are no US interests at stake in Africa, and has made it clear that he would not have become involved in Somalia or, in a different regional context, East Timor.

He would also try to set a date for US troops to be withdrawn from the Balkans, and would insist on "exit strategies" for future commitments. Ms Rice said earlier this year that a Bush administration would demand greater commitments and higher levels of defence spending by European countries.

Mr Bush has said very little so far on Britain or Europe generally, but a Republican presidency would trigger a sharp change in relations between the Blair government and the White House after the closeness of the Clinton years - especially on missile defence.